Re: Cleaning up pkg-message
Le 10/06/2019 à 11:13, David Demelier a écrit : I've also proposed an idea to remove all fancy styles from those messages especially because their are not uniformized. One answer to my proposal : https://marc.info/?l=freebsd-ports=127731211606211=2 ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Cleaning up pkg-message
Le 08/06/2019 à 20:11, Adam Weinberger a écrit : Hello everyone, I want to get some stakeholder input on our pkg-message files. I think we need to have a clear policy about what does and doesn't belong in them, and I'd like to get your input. pkg-message is shown to every user on every install. UPDATING is only shown when users run `pkg updating` *and* /usr/ports/UPDATING exists. I suspect that only a small proportion of users do that. pkg-message needs to contain only highly relevant information. Many, many ports have messages with irrelevant information that users are likely to get message fatigue and ignore them entirely. I don't want to pick on Joe Barbish, because his work is absolutely fantastic, but dns/dns2blackhole/pkg-message is an example of a giant message that tells users to do the same thing they always do for any port: dns2blackhole Malware Prevention through Domain Blocking (Black Hole) Issue "man dns2blackhole" For configuration and usage information We now have the ability to specify messages that appear on initial install, or on upgrades from/to specific version. So here is what I propose as policy: pkg-message must contain only information that is vital to setup and operation, and that is unique to the port in question. Setup information should only be shown on initial install, and upgrade instructions should be shown only when upgrading to the relevant version. All committers have blanket approval to constrain existing messages to install/upgrade ranges using the UCL format specifications. Message pruning falls under the blanket approval as well, but committers are encouraged to get maintainer input beforehand. <<< What are your thoughts? # Adam I've also proposed an idea to remove all fancy styles from those messages especially because their are not uniformized. Unfortunately it didn't get much attention saying that it's not a real necessity to work on changing this just for aesthetic purposes. But if we start making a policy on that, could be nice to include this too. Regards -- David ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Cleaning up pkg-message
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 12:52:41 +0100 Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 08/06/2019 19:29, Bob Eager wrote: > > The committer folded the README file into pkg-message, and I > > disagree with this: > > > 2) It meant that an end user (without access to the ports tree) > > didn't have an immediate way to see the README contents. > > That's not actually correct. > > ``` > % pkg info -D pkgname > ``` > > will display the pkg-message for any package no matter how installed, > or if there's a ports tree present or not. I actually checked the man page before I said that, and still missed it! But yes, there is too much pkg-message noise. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEVgdI2KeVldPAhUYaKBdf2az8e6gFAlz9cJoACgkQKBdf2az8 e6gmJgf8CZ3CreIir1d9cfiTlYSrO2aEE7KQwWbbu/FN7i2ZiqONw34c/FNg7Hcj f2qLK5KbV/ueXLdNgRASFZXN2EkEAx3kZia0pEspLSM6Axsf7VEuopnRFjI54ei4 jFZwK6P43hyMI5V7po7w32Eocjd4dlnKO/aHcPaZlJG4nld2l0wHU9qVi1C5TeYs 9g/5O/3cLNc20xJKBuijaD86rqI7IELsZ/HhgMKkbfVT1vSw8HRA1dgUJhA6z+tb d0ifUYae6c8EYRbzbsDFWS/JwLly5AhzgMNP1fVyq9pm6xpghiLC1uWAdwJizlLA 2+vrf9mv0Kn1+pbtVCe2ovUnNJOhtw== =Cmyf -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Cleaning up pkg-message
On 9 Jun2019, at 09:33, Grzegorz Junka wrote: > Because pkg doesn't know if it's a first install or reinstall. This is a solvable issue, however. There are may things that could be checked to see if this is a new install or not, though some go them will require some additional tracking pf [ports as they are added and removed. -- These go to 11 ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Cleaning up pkg-message
On 09/06/2019 16:55, Adam Weinberger wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 9:33 AM Grzegorz Junka wrote: On 09/06/2019 15:44, Miroslav Lachman wrote: Grzegorz Junka wrote on 2019/06/09 16:12: On 08/06/2019 19:11, Adam Weinberger wrote: Hello everyone, I want to get some stakeholder input on our pkg-message files. I think we need to have a clear policy about what does and doesn't belong in them, and I'd like to get your input. pkg-message is shown to every user on every install. UPDATING is only shown when users run `pkg updating` *and* /usr/ports/UPDATING exists. I suspect that only a small proportion of users do that. pkg-message needs to contain only highly relevant information. Many, many ports have messages with irrelevant information that users are likely to get message fatigue and ignore them entirely. I don't want to pick on Joe Barbish, because his work is absolutely fantastic, but dns/dns2blackhole/pkg-message is an example of a giant message that tells users to do the same thing they always do for any port: dns2blackhole Malware Prevention through Domain Blocking (Black Hole) Issue "man dns2blackhole" For configuration and usage information We now have the ability to specify messages that appear on initial install, or on upgrades from/to specific version. So here is what I propose as policy: pkg-message must contain only information that is vital to setup and operation, and that is unique to the port in question. Setup information should only be shown on initial install, and upgrade instructions should be shown only when upgrading to the relevant version. All committers have blanket approval to constrain existing messages to install/upgrade ranges using the UCL format specifications. Message pruning falls under the blanket approval as well, but committers are encouraged to get maintainer input beforehand. <<< What are your thoughts? # Adam I don't like the approach of separating install from update messages. It only works in the ideal scenario, which is almost never. Two reasons: 1. Very rarely I have time to configure all package requirements when installing a bunch of packages. I usually configure a few most important ones and leave the rest for later. Then I need to remember to re-read whatever requirements they might have had. 2. Very rarely just adding packages to the system works. From adding flavours, to removing KDE4, to renaming packages, etc. There is always something going on and almost every time I try to upgrade all packages in the system because of various problems I end up reinstalling all of them anyway (pkg upgrade -f). In either case update messages don't matter. In my opinion there should be just one short message shown when either upgrading or installing. If there are any specific instructions applicable when only installing or upgrading then it's safer to show in both cases with info in what condition they are applicable. When installing packages with many dependencies a typical user isn't even aware which packages have been added / installed and which have been updated. Why make the life more complicated than it needs to be? I disagree. The more the general messages the more noise to users. If something is useful only on the first install why should user read it on each pkg upgrade for many years in a lifetime of a machine? Then some useful info on upgrade will be missed between many useless messages. I remember change in PHP extensions which caused printing of useless notice on every pkg upgrade of every PHP extension. Average webserver has 10 - 20 of them (or more). This was so annoying that I patched our ports/Mk to not print those messages. If new UCL pkg-message format allows us to print only useful information in specific event I am glad it is finally here! The current state of pkg-message is very bad. Info in it is something I totally ignore on each upgrade because it contains useless informations which are printed to me on all machines on each pkg upgrade once or twice a month... Why if the info is useful only for the first install. Because pkg doesn't know if it's a first install or reinstall. My opinion is that they should be short and scarce so that even if all of them are printed it's not a burden to read them. With the PHP example it doesn't seem like a problem with update vs first install but inadequate message being put there in the first place. The first problem is with too many useless messages, the secondary problem is when they are printed. We are in complete agreement on the first point (they should be specific and relevant). On the second point, I definitely hear you that pkgs IRL aren't always simply "new install and then upgrade forever." However, I feel like we have a great opportunity here: When only the bare minimum and highly relevant information
Re: Cleaning up pkg-message
On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 9:33 AM Grzegorz Junka wrote: > > > On 09/06/2019 15:44, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > > Grzegorz Junka wrote on 2019/06/09 16:12: > >> > >> On 08/06/2019 19:11, Adam Weinberger wrote: > >>> Hello everyone, > >>> > >>> I want to get some stakeholder input on our pkg-message files. I think > >>> we need to have a clear policy about what does and doesn't belong in > >>> them, and I'd like to get your input. > >>> > >>> pkg-message is shown to every user on every install. UPDATING is only > >>> shown when users run `pkg updating` *and* /usr/ports/UPDATING exists. > >>> I suspect that only a small proportion of users do that. > >>> > >>> pkg-message needs to contain only highly relevant information. Many, > >>> many ports have messages with irrelevant information that users are > >>> likely to get message fatigue and ignore them entirely. I don't want > >>> to pick on Joe Barbish, because his work is absolutely fantastic, but > >>> dns/dns2blackhole/pkg-message is an example of a giant message that > >>> tells users to do the same thing they always do for any port: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>dns2blackhole > >>> > >>> Malware Prevention through Domain Blocking (Black Hole) > >>> > >>> Issue "man dns2blackhole" For configuration and usage information > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> We now have the ability to specify messages that appear on initial > >>> install, or on upgrades from/to specific version. So here is what I > >>> propose as policy: > >>> > >>> pkg-message must contain only information that is vital to setup and > >>> operation, and that is unique to the port in question. Setup > >>> information should only be shown on initial install, and upgrade > >>> instructions should be shown only when upgrading to the relevant > >>> version. All committers have blanket approval to constrain existing > >>> messages to install/upgrade ranges using the UCL format > >>> specifications. Message pruning falls under the blanket approval as > >>> well, but committers are encouraged to get maintainer input > >>> beforehand. > >>> <<< > >>> > >>> What are your thoughts? > >>> > >>> # Adam > >> > >> > >> I don't like the approach of separating install from update messages. > >> It only works in the ideal scenario, which is almost never. Two reasons: > >> > >> 1. Very rarely I have time to configure all package requirements when > >> installing a bunch of packages. I usually configure a few most > >> important ones and leave the rest for later. Then I need to remember > >> to re-read whatever requirements they might have had. > >> > >> 2. Very rarely just adding packages to the system works. From adding > >> flavours, to removing KDE4, to renaming packages, etc. There is > >> always something going on and almost every time I try to upgrade all > >> packages in the system because of various problems I end up > >> reinstalling all of them anyway (pkg upgrade -f). > >> > >> In either case update messages don't matter. In my opinion there > >> should be just one short message shown when either upgrading or > >> installing. If there are any specific instructions applicable when > >> only installing or upgrading then it's safer to show in both cases > >> with info in what condition they are applicable. > >> > >> When installing packages with many dependencies a typical user isn't > >> even aware which packages have been added / installed and which have > >> been updated. Why make the life more complicated than it needs to be? > > > > I disagree. The more the general messages the more noise to users. If > > something is useful only on the first install why should user read it > > on each pkg upgrade for many years in a lifetime of a machine? Then > > some useful info on upgrade will be missed between many useless messages. > > I remember change in PHP extensions which caused printing of useless > > notice on every pkg upgrade of every PHP extension. Average webserver > > has 10 - 20 of them (or more). This was so annoying that I patched our > > ports/Mk to not print those messages. > > If new UCL pkg-message format allows us to print only useful > > information in specific event I am glad it is finally here! > > The current state of pkg-message is very bad. Info in it is something > > I totally ignore on each upgrade because it contains useless > > informations which are printed to me on all machines on each pkg > > upgrade once or twice a month... Why if the info is useful only for > > the first install. > > > > Because pkg doesn't know if it's a first install or reinstall. My > opinion is that they should be short and scarce so that even if all of > them are printed it's not a burden to read them. With the PHP example it > doesn't seem like a problem with update vs first install but inadequate > message being put there in the first
Re: Cleaning up pkg-message
On 09/06/2019 15:44, Miroslav Lachman wrote: Grzegorz Junka wrote on 2019/06/09 16:12: On 08/06/2019 19:11, Adam Weinberger wrote: Hello everyone, I want to get some stakeholder input on our pkg-message files. I think we need to have a clear policy about what does and doesn't belong in them, and I'd like to get your input. pkg-message is shown to every user on every install. UPDATING is only shown when users run `pkg updating` *and* /usr/ports/UPDATING exists. I suspect that only a small proportion of users do that. pkg-message needs to contain only highly relevant information. Many, many ports have messages with irrelevant information that users are likely to get message fatigue and ignore them entirely. I don't want to pick on Joe Barbish, because his work is absolutely fantastic, but dns/dns2blackhole/pkg-message is an example of a giant message that tells users to do the same thing they always do for any port: dns2blackhole Malware Prevention through Domain Blocking (Black Hole) Issue "man dns2blackhole" For configuration and usage information We now have the ability to specify messages that appear on initial install, or on upgrades from/to specific version. So here is what I propose as policy: pkg-message must contain only information that is vital to setup and operation, and that is unique to the port in question. Setup information should only be shown on initial install, and upgrade instructions should be shown only when upgrading to the relevant version. All committers have blanket approval to constrain existing messages to install/upgrade ranges using the UCL format specifications. Message pruning falls under the blanket approval as well, but committers are encouraged to get maintainer input beforehand. <<< What are your thoughts? # Adam I don't like the approach of separating install from update messages. It only works in the ideal scenario, which is almost never. Two reasons: 1. Very rarely I have time to configure all package requirements when installing a bunch of packages. I usually configure a few most important ones and leave the rest for later. Then I need to remember to re-read whatever requirements they might have had. 2. Very rarely just adding packages to the system works. From adding flavours, to removing KDE4, to renaming packages, etc. There is always something going on and almost every time I try to upgrade all packages in the system because of various problems I end up reinstalling all of them anyway (pkg upgrade -f). In either case update messages don't matter. In my opinion there should be just one short message shown when either upgrading or installing. If there are any specific instructions applicable when only installing or upgrading then it's safer to show in both cases with info in what condition they are applicable. When installing packages with many dependencies a typical user isn't even aware which packages have been added / installed and which have been updated. Why make the life more complicated than it needs to be? I disagree. The more the general messages the more noise to users. If something is useful only on the first install why should user read it on each pkg upgrade for many years in a lifetime of a machine? Then some useful info on upgrade will be missed between many useless messages. I remember change in PHP extensions which caused printing of useless notice on every pkg upgrade of every PHP extension. Average webserver has 10 - 20 of them (or more). This was so annoying that I patched our ports/Mk to not print those messages. If new UCL pkg-message format allows us to print only useful information in specific event I am glad it is finally here! The current state of pkg-message is very bad. Info in it is something I totally ignore on each upgrade because it contains useless informations which are printed to me on all machines on each pkg upgrade once or twice a month... Why if the info is useful only for the first install. Because pkg doesn't know if it's a first install or reinstall. My opinion is that they should be short and scarce so that even if all of them are printed it's not a burden to read them. With the PHP example it doesn't seem like a problem with update vs first install but inadequate message being put there in the first place. The first problem is with too many useless messages, the secondary problem is when they are printed. GrzegorzJ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Cleaning up pkg-message
Grzegorz Junka wrote on 2019/06/09 16:12: On 08/06/2019 19:11, Adam Weinberger wrote: Hello everyone, I want to get some stakeholder input on our pkg-message files. I think we need to have a clear policy about what does and doesn't belong in them, and I'd like to get your input. pkg-message is shown to every user on every install. UPDATING is only shown when users run `pkg updating` *and* /usr/ports/UPDATING exists. I suspect that only a small proportion of users do that. pkg-message needs to contain only highly relevant information. Many, many ports have messages with irrelevant information that users are likely to get message fatigue and ignore them entirely. I don't want to pick on Joe Barbish, because his work is absolutely fantastic, but dns/dns2blackhole/pkg-message is an example of a giant message that tells users to do the same thing they always do for any port: dns2blackhole Malware Prevention through Domain Blocking (Black Hole) Issue "man dns2blackhole" For configuration and usage information We now have the ability to specify messages that appear on initial install, or on upgrades from/to specific version. So here is what I propose as policy: pkg-message must contain only information that is vital to setup and operation, and that is unique to the port in question. Setup information should only be shown on initial install, and upgrade instructions should be shown only when upgrading to the relevant version. All committers have blanket approval to constrain existing messages to install/upgrade ranges using the UCL format specifications. Message pruning falls under the blanket approval as well, but committers are encouraged to get maintainer input beforehand. <<< What are your thoughts? # Adam I don't like the approach of separating install from update messages. It only works in the ideal scenario, which is almost never. Two reasons: 1. Very rarely I have time to configure all package requirements when installing a bunch of packages. I usually configure a few most important ones and leave the rest for later. Then I need to remember to re-read whatever requirements they might have had. 2. Very rarely just adding packages to the system works. From adding flavours, to removing KDE4, to renaming packages, etc. There is always something going on and almost every time I try to upgrade all packages in the system because of various problems I end up reinstalling all of them anyway (pkg upgrade -f). In either case update messages don't matter. In my opinion there should be just one short message shown when either upgrading or installing. If there are any specific instructions applicable when only installing or upgrading then it's safer to show in both cases with info in what condition they are applicable. When installing packages with many dependencies a typical user isn't even aware which packages have been added / installed and which have been updated. Why make the life more complicated than it needs to be? I disagree. The more the general messages the more noise to users. If something is useful only on the first install why should user read it on each pkg upgrade for many years in a lifetime of a machine? Then some useful info on upgrade will be missed between many useless messages. I remember change in PHP extensions which caused printing of useless notice on every pkg upgrade of every PHP extension. Average webserver has 10 - 20 of them (or more). This was so annoying that I patched our ports/Mk to not print those messages. If new UCL pkg-message format allows us to print only useful information in specific event I am glad it is finally here! The current state of pkg-message is very bad. Info in it is something I totally ignore on each upgrade because it contains useless informations which are printed to me on all machines on each pkg upgrade once or twice a month... Why if the info is useful only for the first install. Miroslav Lachman ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Cleaning up pkg-message
On 08/06/2019 19:11, Adam Weinberger wrote: Hello everyone, I want to get some stakeholder input on our pkg-message files. I think we need to have a clear policy about what does and doesn't belong in them, and I'd like to get your input. pkg-message is shown to every user on every install. UPDATING is only shown when users run `pkg updating` *and* /usr/ports/UPDATING exists. I suspect that only a small proportion of users do that. pkg-message needs to contain only highly relevant information. Many, many ports have messages with irrelevant information that users are likely to get message fatigue and ignore them entirely. I don't want to pick on Joe Barbish, because his work is absolutely fantastic, but dns/dns2blackhole/pkg-message is an example of a giant message that tells users to do the same thing they always do for any port: dns2blackhole Malware Prevention through Domain Blocking (Black Hole) Issue "man dns2blackhole" For configuration and usage information We now have the ability to specify messages that appear on initial install, or on upgrades from/to specific version. So here is what I propose as policy: pkg-message must contain only information that is vital to setup and operation, and that is unique to the port in question. Setup information should only be shown on initial install, and upgrade instructions should be shown only when upgrading to the relevant version. All committers have blanket approval to constrain existing messages to install/upgrade ranges using the UCL format specifications. Message pruning falls under the blanket approval as well, but committers are encouraged to get maintainer input beforehand. <<< What are your thoughts? # Adam I don't like the approach of separating install from update messages. It only works in the ideal scenario, which is almost never. Two reasons: 1. Very rarely I have time to configure all package requirements when installing a bunch of packages. I usually configure a few most important ones and leave the rest for later. Then I need to remember to re-read whatever requirements they might have had. 2. Very rarely just adding packages to the system works. From adding flavours, to removing KDE4, to renaming packages, etc. There is always something going on and almost every time I try to upgrade all packages in the system because of various problems I end up reinstalling all of them anyway (pkg upgrade -f). In either case update messages don't matter. In my opinion there should be just one short message shown when either upgrading or installing. If there are any specific instructions applicable when only installing or upgrading then it's safer to show in both cases with info in what condition they are applicable. When installing packages with many dependencies a typical user isn't even aware which packages have been added / installed and which have been updated. Why make the life more complicated than it needs to be? GrzegorzJ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Cleaning up pkg-message
On 08/06/2019 19:29, Bob Eager wrote: > The committer folded the README file into pkg-message, and I disagree > with this: > 2) It meant that an end user (without access to the ports tree) didn't > have an immediate way to see the README contents. That's not actually correct. ``` % pkg info -D pkgname ``` will display the pkg-message for any package no matter how installed, or if there's a ports tree present or not. However, I agree in general with your position: pkg-message is something that needs to be used sparingly, and not to endlessly repeat either trivial or out-dated messages. The new UCL formatting stuff is an excellent improvement in that regard. Cheers, Matthew signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Cleaning up pkg-message
On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 12:29 PM Bob Eager wrote: > > On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 12:16:05 -0600 > Adam Weinberger wrote: > > > I want to get some stakeholder input on our pkg-message files. I think > > we need to have a clear policy about what does and doesn't belong in > > them, and I'd like to get your input. > > I agree. > > I recently noticed that one of my ports had been modified by the > previous committer. I had a pkg-message which was short and contained > concise, minimal information. I also has a README file, installed > in /usr/local/share/doc/... if the DOCS option was selected. > > The committer folded the README file into pkg-message, and I disagree > with this: > > 1) It added far too much bulk to pkg-message. > > 2) It meant that an end user (without access to the ports tree) didn't > have an immediate way to see the README contents. > > 3) The committer tacked the README file onto pkg-message without > noticing that there was a %%DOCSDIR%% to be expanded, so that is how it > appears in pkg-message. Committers have the prerogative to alter pkg-message as required, but as the maintainer you have every right to object. Which port is it? I'd be happy to fix that for you. # Adam -- Adam Weinberger ad...@adamw.org https://www.adamw.org ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Cleaning up pkg-message
On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 12:11:57PM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I want to get some stakeholder input on our pkg-message files. I think > we need to have a clear policy about what does and doesn't belong in > them, and I'd like to get your input. > > pkg-message is shown to every user on every install. UPDATING is only > shown when users run `pkg updating` *and* /usr/ports/UPDATING exists. > I suspect that only a small proportion of users do that. Well, for folks who install pre-built packages, probably. For those of us who -- for at least some systems -- build from ports locally, I'm less confident: I check it for relevant entries that have been added since last time I updated installed ports on my laptop or local build machine (which is daily) or my work desktop (which is weekly). Mind, its utility falls a bit short of the mark: ref. https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227193 > pkg-message needs to contain only highly relevant information. Many, > many ports have messages with irrelevant information that users are > likely to get message fatigue and ignore them entirely. I don't want > to pick on Joe Barbish, because his work is absolutely fantastic, but > dns/dns2blackhole/pkg-message is an example of a giant message that > tells users to do the same thing they always do for any port: > > > dns2blackhole > >Malware Prevention through Domain Blocking (Black Hole) > >Issue "man dns2blackhole" For configuration and usage information > > > > We now have the ability to specify messages that appear on initial > install, or on upgrades from/to specific version. So here is what I > propose as policy: > > >>> > pkg-message must contain only information that is vital to setup and > operation, and that is unique to the port in question. Setup > information should only be shown on initial install, and upgrade > instructions should be shown only when upgrading to the relevant > version. All committers have blanket approval to constrain existing > messages to install/upgrade ranges using the UCL format > specifications. Message pruning falls under the blanket approval as > well, but committers are encouraged to get maintainer input > beforehand. > <<< > > What are your thoughts? > No objections, and de-cluttering seems like a pretty good idea. (At least you didn't insert a requirement that any such messages must "spark joy." :-) ) Peace, david -- David H. Wolfskill da...@catwhisker.org "...including Mars (of which the Moon is a part)" -- Donald J. Trump See http://www.catwhisker.org/~david/publickey.gpg for my public key. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Cleaning up pkg-message
On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 12:16:05 -0600 Adam Weinberger wrote: > I want to get some stakeholder input on our pkg-message files. I think > we need to have a clear policy about what does and doesn't belong in > them, and I'd like to get your input. I agree. I recently noticed that one of my ports had been modified by the previous committer. I had a pkg-message which was short and contained concise, minimal information. I also has a README file, installed in /usr/local/share/doc/... if the DOCS option was selected. The committer folded the README file into pkg-message, and I disagree with this: 1) It added far too much bulk to pkg-message. 2) It meant that an end user (without access to the ports tree) didn't have an immediate way to see the README contents. 3) The committer tacked the README file onto pkg-message without noticing that there was a %%DOCSDIR%% to be expanded, so that is how it appears in pkg-message. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
